This RIGHT HERE is the WORST THING about the SAVE Act. You could be WRONGLY purged from the voting rolls AFTER it is too late to re-register. This WILL happen to some. WATCH THIS. Repost it. Steal it if you want. The important thing is this truth NEEDS to... be shared.show more

More leftist propaganda. When they don’t quote the actual bill text and instead allege what the bill will do you know you’re dealing with disingenuous narratives aimed at manipulating gullible leftards.

What did I say that isn't true?

1. Claim: States must hand over complete voter rolls to DHS quarterly (since June 1, 2025 for an exemption from photo ID at polls). This is retroactive and impossible—no state qualifies, forcing all into the most restrictive track (a "poison pill"). Fact-Check: Heavily distorted. The bill does not mandate quarterly voter roll submissions to DHS for all states. Instead, Section 3(c)(4)(B) creates a narrow exemption from the photo ID requirement's strict citizenship indicator on the ID: States that have submitted voter rolls to DHS via the SAVE program quarterly since June 1, 2025 (and mark verification in records) can use IDs without explicitly indicating citizenship on the face (with other options). This date is retroactive relative to the bill's 2026 introduction/enactment, meaning few (if any) states would immediately qualify without prior voluntary compliance. However, the exemption is optional and tied only to photo ID rules—not the core citizenship proof for registration. The bill does not force "all states" into photo ID via this; photo ID applies nationwide upon enactment, with this as a limited workaround for compliant states. Misleading/Fearmongering: The transcript invents a binary "fake choice" where non-submission forces "the most restrictive track" universally. It ignores that the main proof-of-citizenship requirement (for registration) stands regardless, and the retroactive date amplifies administrative concerns but isn't a universal "poison pill" disenfranchising everyone. 2. Claim: DHS runs voter rolls through the SAVE system (error-prone, high false positives for naturalized citizens), leading to flags and mandatory purges. Fact-Check: Overstated and misattributed. The bill (Section 8(j)(4)) allows (but does not require) states to use SAVE (or SSA, state agencies, etc.) to identify non-citizens on rolls as part of an "ongoing" program to ensure only citizens are registered. Section 8(k) requires removal upon "receipt of documentation or verified information" of non-citizenship (no frequency like "every 30 days" is mandated). Federal agencies must respond to state requests for verification info within 24 hours (Section 8(j)(5)), and DHS can use SAVE for responses. SAVE's known error rates (e.g., false flags for naturalized citizens due to data lags) are real and documented in prior audits, but the bill does not mandate DHS to run all rolls or force purges based on SAVE flags alone—states control the process. Misleading/Fearmongering: The transcript wrongly implies automatic, DHS-driven mass purges via quarterly roll handovers and SAVE checks. No such mandatory quarterly submission or purge cycle exists; it conflates optional tools with requirements to evoke database-error panic. 3. Claim: Purges every 30 days with no pre-removal notification; eliminates NVRA's 90-day quiet period, allowing removals up to Election Day after registration deadlines. Fact-Check: False. The bill adds non-citizenship (via "documentary proof or verified information") as a removal ground (amending Section 8(a)(3)) but does not mandate monthly purges, eliminate the 90-day quiet period for systematic list maintenance, or remove notification requirements. Existing NVRA safeguards (including notice and quiet period) remain intact unless directly amended (they aren't here for purges). Misleading/Fearmongering: This is a major invention—creating a "stealth purge" narrative of last-minute, unnotified removals post-deadline, leading to inevitable disenfranchisement. The bill focuses on registration verification and ongoing eligibility checks, not timed purges. 4. Claim: Purged voters have no recourse; same-day registration requires proof of citizenship (e.g., passport/birth certificate); provisional ballots useless; flagged individuals face DHS criminal investigation. Fact-Check: Misleading/exaggerated. For registration, the bill requires proof at application but includes an alternative process (Section 8(j)(2)) for those without documents: attestation under penalty of perjury + "other evidence" reviewed by officials, with an affidavit if approved. Same-day registration (where states allow it) can use this process or present proof at the polls (Section 6(e)). Provisional ballots aren't restricted by the bill (rule of construction in Section 2(o) preserves them if citizenship is later verified). No automatic DHS criminal referral for flags—only if non-citizenship is confirmed (and for non-citizens, potential removal proceedings; Section 8(j)(5)(D)). Criminal penalties target knowing false claims or officials registering without proof (Section 2(j)), not erroneous flags. Misleading/Fearmongering: Portrays absolute barriers ("you're done," "no recourse," criminal probes for citizens) while ignoring built-in alternatives, state flexibility, and preserved provisional options.

Criticism 1 — The "poison pill" framing This one has legitimate teeth. The script did overstate this. The retroactive June 2025 date is genuinely problematic and worth flagging, but the critic is right that it's an exemption from one specific ID provision, not the entire registration framework. The core problem — proof of citizenship at registration — stands regardless. The retroactive date makes the exemption functionally useless for most states, and that's the accurate way to frame it. Saying it "forces all states into the most restrictive track universally" was an overreach. What to correct: Reframe the retroactive date as "an exemption so narrowly drawn that virtually no state can qualify" rather than a universal disenfranchisement mechanism. Criticism 2 — Mandatory DHS-driven purges This criticism is partially valid. The script conflated optional SAVE usage with mandatory DHS-driven mass purges. The bill does allow (not require) states to use SAVE, and states retain control. However — and this matters — the incentive structure and federal pressure mean most states will use SAVE, and the error rate problem is real regardless of who technically controls the trigger. The Boone County example stands. What to correct: Distinguish between "allows" and "requires," but don't abandon the SAVE error-rate argument because that's the core harm. Criticism 3 — The 30-day purge cycle and 90-day quiet period. This is the criticism with the most bite. Looking back at what the Brennan Center said versus the actual bill text, this appears to have been an interpretation error — the Brennan Center's analysis was cited as the source, and it may have been overstating the bill's actual text. The critic is right that the bill adds non-citizenship as a removal ground but doesn't explicitly mandate monthly purges or explicitly eliminate the quiet period. What to correct: This needs genuine acknowledgment. The 30-day purge language and quiet period elimination should be walked back unless you can cite the specific bill section. The nightmare scenario described can still happen through the combination of provisions, but it needs to be framed more carefully — as a structural vulnerability rather than an explicit mandate. Criticism 4: The criticism here is fair but also somewhat dishonest in the other direction. Yes, there's an attestation process as an alternative. But the critic glosses over how burdensome "attestation under penalty of perjury plus other evidence reviewed by officials" actually is for people with legitimate citizenship who simply lack documents — and what it means to face perjury risk when navigating a bureaucratic process under time pressure. The "no recourse" framing was too absolute; "inadequate and inaccessible recourse" would be more defensible. Conclusion: Some of what you say is "fair" but also overly protective of what the bill actually says. The video may make it sound like all of these things will "ALWAYS" happen, but they CAN happen, and WILL happen in SOME cases--even MANY cases. The overall premise remains valid: The SAVE Act runs the very real risk of disenfranchising FAR more citizens from being able to vote than it does non-citizens from voting.

In other words, you intentionally mislead your audience with your leftist propaganda just like I accused you of doing.

No, I didn't. You intentionally misrepresented what I was saying, and I had the poor sense to treat your response as though you were acting in good faith.

I didn’t misrepresent anything. I extracted the audio, used speech-to-text to generate a transcript, passed it and the full text of the bill to an LLM with a prompt to extract false claims and identify anything that appeared to be intentionally misleading and/or fear mongering.

You did, and I clarified in detail how. Using an LLM. Bye now, Bryan.

Other possibilities: #1 You could have an airplane fall out of the sky on top of your head. #2 You could be arrested for a crime you not only didn't commit, but you were incapable of committing, because of where you were at the time. #3 You could be caught in a time warp, and wake up in 1971 with a dildo in your pocket. All highly improbable, but not impossible, leaving the COULD an unavoidable truth. IN OTHER WORDS, the way you framed the prose of your statement is PURE GASLIGHTING. Not at all UNTRUE, but pure speculation on the proabilities, of which YOU have no idea at all.

Non-citizens voting is rarer than all of that shit. 25% of non-citizens flagged by the DHS systerm were false flags. Fuck off.

@KellyScaletta @TheTVConsPiracy Non-citizens never vote in numbers that could affect any election, but the SAVE Act will purge valid citizens from the voter rolls.

@HadrianHarker @KellyScaletta @TheTVConsPiracy That issue can be fixed with way less risk.

@Clayton8O8 @HadrianHarker @TheTVConsPiracy There is no "risk" you obdurate fucking sponge cake.

They’re counting on it

If you need a passport, START NOW. Look online at what the steps are. If you don't have a certified birth certificate, you will have to get one.

You could have a passport but have you voter ID purged AFTER the registration deadline.

@MillieCordelia China “could “start firing rockets at us too…. FFS

@KellyScaletta Not helpful. If you don't care about whether you vote or not, fine.

The SAVE Act is fascist voter suppression to avoid the Republicans getting wiped out in the midterm elections. We don't have a problem with non citizens voting in this country. Call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you will vote to remove them if they vote for this.

Do senators know this? Democrats can’t vote for this!

It is infuriating.

@getwhittet Stop with the FEAR MONGERING!!! We NEED #VOTERId NOW!!! You’ve got a stupid Ukraine flag in your bio!

@getwhittet Why do we need "voter ID?" To stop the boogeyman from voting? The SAVE Act IS fear mongering.

@KellyScaletta @SchnauzerMom40 @getwhittet Dead people and non-citizens have never voted in any amounts to influence any election, ever.

@frgtr46052602 @KellyScaletta @SchnauzerMom40 @getwhittet They did in 2020

@HadrianHarker @frgtr46052602 @KellyScaletta @SchnauzerMom40 @getwhittet @grok did dead people or non-citizens vote in the 2020 election?

Based on multiple studies and investigations (e.g., from PBS, Brennan Center, and academic analyses in states like Washington), there were rare, isolated instances of ballots cast in the names of deceased individuals or by non-citizens in 2020—far too few to affect outcomes. Claims of widespread fraud lack evidence.

You conveniently forgot to mention provisional ballots while making up your lies and fables. A provisional ballot is a ballot given to a voter when there is some question about their eligibility at the polling place. It allows the person to vote immediately while election officials later verify whether the vote should be counted.

I didn't "forget" anything, Andrew. If you can't register, you can't register.

@AndyBinga And why can’t a citizen register?

@AndyBinga Because if they are purged AFTER the deadline, they can't register.

@AndyBinga That’s where provisional ballots come in.

@AndyBinga Provisional ballots don't count if you're not registered, Cynthia.

For 69 million female voters, the name on their birth certificates doesn’t match their current married, divorced, or widowed name. And they won't be allowed to vote b/c of that if DJT & GOP get their way? 😳 What the frick, .@POTUS & .@SenateGOP ?

@RueKat123 And true to form the GOPedo's are making it so much harder to even get the needed passports by firing much of the govt employees who process the applications. They restrict mail-in ballots while closing down/restricting the hours of polling places in Dem areas.

If it's a constitutional right to vote without ID then it's a constitutional right to buy a gun without ID. Which is it

False equivalence.

@MuricaTodd I hope you didn't pay for that video.

@MuricaTodd I made the video. It is accurate.

@MuricaTodd My condolences.

@MuricaTodd None needed. I'm sorry it went over your head.

@MuricaTodd God speed. Maybe one day, you'll understand.

@MuricaTodd Maybe one day you will stop being a fucking pan of cornbread.

Fallacy.

I’m not retarded. I know how to keep my documents in order. Offensive AF.

All bogus BS. It’s not a complicated process…unless you’re a retard. Period. One extra step to ensure illegals aren’t voting. And it’s WELL worth it.

@KellyScaletta And if they are to retarded to manage this process, they shouldn't be voting anyways.

@KellyScaletta Excellent point.

@MsMalarkey24 They will still claim the wrong people got fake voter ID. It’s all just to be able to claim elections are illegitimate. We DON’T HAVE VOTER FRAUD. They are just trying to convince people that we do

That’s why they want the voter rolls - purge democrats

Will this be posted on Facebook?

Yes! Here is the link:

Thx - will ask my Facebook buddies who do not do x to amplify.

"There is no law permitting them sending a purge notice" This is the entire fucking problem, dipshit.

Texas is doing that already. This is the third year in a row I have been removed. I live in the same county all my life.. this year I had to show up in person can’t do it online. They are trying their best but guess what I will be voting and I showed up in person..

This bill The Save Act had to be written by the @Heritage & @ALEC_states. If this passes there will be a lot of lawyers and lawsuits.

@realUnpresident This is too long for MAGAts to pay attention and understand. You’ll lose them before the video is over.

@realUnpresident I tried to make a picture book since they don't read.

@realUnpresident I wish you the best of luck!

@justice4all01 Second worst thing is the voter rolls going to DHS. Why? Third worst thing is if one needs to sign an affidavit due to their name not matching, the election official faces prison time if they make a mistake. That will certainly result in legal citizens being denied voting.

@GeauxGabrielle Lol! You say “this will happen to some”, but when we use that same logic to say that some of the 30m illegals will vote, you insist it can never happen. 🙄

@BlisterPearl I’ve had a sneaking suspicion that mass voter purgers will happen in October, right around the end of the month. By then it will be too late to get a passport. People (women, mainly) wont be able to vote.

@suzn61 It affects both sides significantly because more conservatives dont have pasports. (I hate both sideisms...but it is the case). Why more magas dont get it, is weird. Or maybe they just dont want to vote because trump told them they wont have to anymore?

Voter ID isnt hard, if Somalia and other countries can do it so can the US.

This too.

The SAVE act is not about presenting IDs.

Trump is going to purge every single state and make everyone re-register or at least all Dems

Yeah, I dont care. lf this is the cost to get voter ID finally and removes the dead people and illegals and stop the fraud then do. We are the only country that does require voter ID

No we aren't. And this isn't about voter ID.

@grok list the modern western countries that do not require photo ID to vote beside the US.

Besides the US, modern western countries that do not require photo ID for voting include: - Australia: No ID needed; just confirm name and address. - New Zealand: No ID; confirm details from electoral roll. - Denmark: Poll card suffices; no photo ID mandatory. - Canada: Photo ID optional; can use two non-photo IDs or other proofs. Requirements can change, so verify locally.

Being PURGED FROM VOTER ROLES HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY FOR YEARS!!! The SAVE ACT means it can happen to WHITES too. Now we can ALL KNOW THE COST of having your voice erased without due cause. Don't look away. WE MUST FIX THIS!!

Lol Russia missed a couple of flaws in this one. What month is this?

What the fuck are you talking about?

@MemeCoinNewsnet He thinks AI image generation of text is evidence of Russian involvement.

@MemeCoinNewsnet Like, why would Russia be against the SAVE Act? MAGAs are so fucking weird.

Thats why people should check every month to make sure their name is still on the voting registration. Call your Board of Election. Put the number in phone. Call every month!

Why would a non-citizen risk getting caught by trying to vote? Some people are really stupid and will fall for anything, smh. THAT's why it's .01%... the "big lie" is destroying America one idiot at a time. Use some common sense!

The SAVE Act is a desperate attempt to suppress votes because the GOP will lose the House of Representatives in the midterms because Trump is the least popular President in history. Americans don't like his corruption and incompetence.